In this task, you are given an article. Your task is to summarize the article in a sentence.

Residents are still concerned by power cuts, water shortages and watching out for falling mortars.
The sound of regime warplanes attacking rural Damascus has become part of daily life and the new development just adds another layer.
"Who cares who is hitting where, almost all the world is involved in slaughtering Syria," said Samar (not her real name), who lives in the capital, in a telephone call.
Five years on since the protests calling for freedom and democracy began in Syria, people in areas under government control are still afraid of voicing dissent, fearing detention by security forces.
For Samar, Russia's intervention is tantamount to an occupation of Syria, but others see it as a natural development of ties which stretch back decades.
Relations between Damascus and Moscow deepened after Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez, developed a strategic and military alliance with what was then the Soviet Union.
Where key countries stand - Who is backing whom
Why? What? How? - Five things you need to know about Russia's involvement
What can Russia's air force do? - The US-led coalition has failed to destroy IS. Can Russia do any better?
Inside an air strike - Activist describes "frightening Russian air strike"
Syria's civil war explained - Analysis and background on the conflict
"Since Soviet times the Russians have been increasing their presence and ties in Syria gradually," said one Damascus resident, a musician who was taught by Russian tutors.
"Regional developments over decades drove Syria closer to the Russians, and they [the Russians] were more present and influential in the country than the West," he said.
The co-operation with Russia took different forms, most importantly on the military level, but also many Russian companies were given lucrative contracts in oil and gas fields and other industrial sectors.
Russia's imprint is clear even in the architecture of Damascus. On the highway leading to Homs, a residential block for Russian experts and their families was built, whose design was copied in many parts of the city.
The Russian Cultural Centre in Damascus was a place were Syrians used to go to learn about Russian culture, take classes in ballroom dancing and drink good quality vodka.
Educational support and scholarships were offered to Syrians to go and study there. Most of them had close links to the regime and the ruling Baath party.
Many came back with fake certificates to take up high positions in government and education.
"The military and cultural fields were the strong ones but in other areas, there was a lot of room of corruption," the musician said.
"We would never go to a doctor who had studied in Russia because we never trusted that they had qualified."
But Dr Salwa Abed Allah, who herself studied in Russia, sees things differently.
"There were cases of students who were sent to study by their syndicates or parties and came back empty handed, but most of the students who were sent by government came back qualified."
For Dr Abed Allah, the recent Russian involvement is welcomed, and she is even hopeful of an end to the war in Syria.
"We don't like to see any foreign troops on our ground, but if it's a choice between between Islamic State [IS] or the Russians, we definitely welcome the Russians.
"We consider them our friends and allies. They are here to rescue us."
But the musician sees Russia's involvement as much a violation of sovereignty as any other foreign presence in Syria.
"Our country is gone and will never be back the same again. We are helplessly watching our country being torn apart," he said.
"There is no sovereignty in Syria. When regional powers are playing in your back yard and you have no say, you can't claim this is a sovereign country".
On one level, Russia is acting to change the dynamics on the ground and protect Bashar al-Assad.
For the Russians it is also an attempt to limit Iran's influence in Syria and send a message to the world that they are still a player in the region.
Officially, Russia says it was invited in by Damascus to fight "terrorists", but like the regime, it makes no distinction between IS and other rebel groups.
Western sources say so far Russia's air strikes have hit mainly non-IS rebels.
A high-ranking Russian official has said the talk in Moscow is that the operation could last three-to-four months, but there is the risk that for Russia Syria could become the new Afghanistan, with many years of bloodshed to come.
While Russia's dramatic involvement in the war in Syria has reverberated in capitals around the world, in government-controlled Damascus life goes on much the same as before.

But the sixty-minute session in which Facebook's founder was first interviewed by a journalist from Wired, then joined on stage by three mobile operators, was one big yawn, a missed opportunity.
Okay, the subject of the session - Facebook's mission to get people in the developing world online via something called internet.org - was not, on the face of it, controversial.
And Mr Zuckerberg was allowed to paint his business, in that typically happy-clappy Californian way, as motivated only by a desire to enrich more lives through an internet connection.
But there are some nagging questions to be asked about internet.org. It may sound great that mobile phone users in Kenya, for instance, are getting free internet access to sites like Wikipedia, one local Kenyan news site, BBC Swahili - and, of course, Facebook.
But who acts as the gatekeeper for this walled garden - and what about those other local news sites that aren't on the site and have to charge for access?
And what price net neutrality in Africa? A two-speed internet has just been ruled out in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission. But the laudable mission of internet.org could end up creating fast lanes for those deemed worthy by Mr Zuckerberg and his lieutenants.
Then there's the thorny question of Facebook's relationship with mobile phone operators. It was amusing to reflect that the three mobile companies represented on the stage could probably be gobbled up for breakfast by the hugely wealthy social network without a second thought.
Mobile networks are seeing their revenues threatened by messaging apps like WhatsApp, bought by Facebook a while back. Meanwhile, they are still much more heavily regulated - Deutsche Telekom's boss made a call in Barcelona for internet firms to face the same level of regulation.
But on stage the mobile operators joined in the love-in, praising Mr Zuckerberg's campaign for increasing the flow of data across their networks.
Facebook's founder was briefly asked about regulation. His answer, somewhat bizarrely for the chief executive of a major communications company, was that he did not understand the subject - "I'm not a regulator".
He kept repeating this phrase and was allowed to laugh off the very idea that regulation was anything to do with him.
The self-congratulatory session ended with little light shed on how the fractious relationship between the social network and the companies which have built the internet's infrastructure might develop.
But some time soon - just as Google has already discovered - the regulators will come knocking. Mr Zuckerberg will need to have some answers then.
He's probably the single most influential figure in the world of mobile communications, so Mark Zuckerberg's appearance at the Mobile World Congress was always bound to be a hot ticket.

The bill will now get Royal Assent and become law.
The bill was given accelerated passage through the House of Commons on Monday night despite objections from Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) MPs.
MLAs voted last week to hand powers over the welfare system to Westminster.
That followed a new agreement between the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Sinn Féin, Stormont's two largest parties, and the British and Irish governments.
The deal included a four-year package to soften the blow of the welfare reform and tax credits cuts, with a value of £585m.
Liberal Democrat Northern Ireland spokesperson Lord Alderdice told the Lords debate that Northern Ireland legislation is often rushed through, and this is "not entirely satisfactory."
However, he said it was best to "get it though quickly" in the case of this bill.
Crossbench peer Lord Rogan said the matter of welfare reform should have been addressed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
He described the assembly as "dysfunctional" and "incapable of making decisions".
Shadow Northern Ireland spokesperson Lord McAvoy  said "without an agreement there was a real risk of the collapse of devolution and the return of home rule".
He said Labour would support the bill.
Government spokesperson Lord Dunlop said the government had worked hard to build consensus among the Northern Ireland parties.

The Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill has passed through the House of Lords.

